<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2003 (8) TMI 132 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52254</link>
    <description>A jointly addressed show cause notice can sustain clubbing proceedings against an alleged dummy unit where it clearly alleges financial flow back and clubbing, replies are filed, and the parties actively participate without demonstrated prejudice; a mere technical defect in drafting does not vitiate the process. The extended limitation period may apply where the record shows mutual exchange of machinery, sharing of facilities, and financial intertwining amounting to suppression intended to evade duty. As to the other unit, the clubbing issue was not finally decided on the existing record and was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the penalties arising from the impugned clubbing determination set aside.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jul 2024 09:06:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=90732" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2003 (8) TMI 132 - CESTAT, CHENNAI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52254</link>
      <description>A jointly addressed show cause notice can sustain clubbing proceedings against an alleged dummy unit where it clearly alleges financial flow back and clubbing, replies are filed, and the parties actively participate without demonstrated prejudice; a mere technical defect in drafting does not vitiate the process. The extended limitation period may apply where the record shows mutual exchange of machinery, sharing of facilities, and financial intertwining amounting to suppression intended to evade duty. As to the other unit, the clubbing issue was not finally decided on the existing record and was remanded for fresh adjudication, with the penalties arising from the impugned clubbing determination set aside.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Aug 2003 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=52254</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>